1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to bone fixation devices, and in particular to a screw assembly for the internal fixation of vertebral bodies.
2. Description of the Related Art
Various devices for internal fixation of bone segments in the human or animal body are known in the art. One type of system is a pedicle screw system, which is sometimes used as an adjunct to spinal fusion surgery, and which provides a means of gripping a spinal segment. A conventional pedicle screw system comprises a pedicle screw and a rod-receiving device. The pedicle screw includes an externally threaded stem and a head portion. The rod-receiving device couples to the head portion of the pedicle screw and receives a rod (commonly referred to as a distraction rod). Two such systems are inserted into respective vertebrae and adjusted to distract and/or stabilize a spinal column, for instance during an operation to correct a herniated disk. The pedicle screw does not, by itself, fixate the spinal segment, but instead operates as an anchor point to receive the rod-receiving device, which in turn receives the rod. One goal of such a system is to substantially reduce and/or prevent relative motion between the spinal segments that are being fused.
Although conventional prior art pedicle screw systems exist, they lack features that enhance and/or benefit newer, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques that are more commonly being used for spinal surgeries. It has been suggested that one possible advantage of an MIS approach is that it can decrease a patient's recovery time.
Conventional pedicle screw systems and even more recently designed pedicle screw systems have several drawbacks. Some of these pedicle screw systems are rather large and bulky, which may result in more tissue damage in and around the surgical site when the pedicle screw system is installed during surgery. The prior art pedicle screw systems have a rod-receiving device that is pre-operatively coupled or attached to the pedicle screw. In addition, some of the prior art pedicle screw systems include numerous components that must all be carefully assembled together. For example, one type of pedicle screw system that may require up to nine (9) different components is disclosed in U.S. Published Patent Application Nos. 2005/0203516 and 2005/0216003 to Biedermann et al.
One drawback that is common among many prior art pedicle screw systems is that a threaded component is used to lock down the rod in the rod-receiving device. Examples of these types of systems can be found in U.S. Published Patent Application Nos. 2005/0192571 to Abdelgany; 2005/0192573 to Abdelgany et al.; the Biedermann et al. applications; 2005/0187548 to Butler et al.; 2005/0203515 to Doherty et al.; and 2004/0172022 to Landry et al. Each of these pedicle screw systems have an externally threaded fastening element either directly or indirectly coupled to the vertically extending walls of the rod-receiving device (e.g., referred to as a bone fixator, a receiving part, a coupling construct, etc.).
One problem associated with the above-identified pedicle screw systems is that cross-threading may occur when the fastening element is installed. Cross-threading may cause the fastening element to jam and/or may result in an improper construct where some components may not be in the correct position. Due to the dynamic nature of spinal movement, a cross-threaded pedicle screw system may be more prone to post-operative failure.
Another problem with the above-identified pedicle screw systems is that the coupling between the fastening element and the rod-receiving device when subjected to dynamic, post-operative loading may result in the walls of the rod-receiving device splaying apart. In the above-identified pedicle screw systems, the walls of the rod-receiving device are unsupported. Post-operative tulip splaying, as it is commonly called, may result in the dislodgment of the fastening element and the rod. In short, the pedicle screw system may become post-operatively disassembled and no longer function according to its intended purpose.
Other prior art pedicle screw systems have attempted to address some of the aforementioned drawbacks. For example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,609,593, 5,647,873, 5,667,508, 5,669,911, and 5,690,630, all to Errico et al., disclose a threaded, outer cap that extends over and couples to the walls of the rod-receiving device. However, the risk and/or potential for cross-threading is still present when the threaded, outer cap is coupled with the rod-receiving device.
Other pedicle screw systems such as U.S. Pat. No. 5,882,350 to Ralph et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 6,132,432 to Richelsoph; U.S. Pat. No. 4,950,269 to Gaines, Jr.; U.S. Pat. No. 6,626,908 to Cooper et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 6,402,752 to Schaffler-Wachter et al.; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,843,791 to Serhan may address some of the aforementioned drawbacks, but each of these pedicle screw systems are pre-operatively assembled, which makes these systems more difficult to install and maneuver in a spinal operation where MIS techniques are used.